L.O.S.T., Heritage Action, And Isakson

No, this is not about T-SPLOST. 

While most of us have been obsessing over transportation, the economy, tax policy, unemployment, budget deficits, the farm bill, Afghanistan, Atlanta’s water supply, Savannah’s port, and whether this will finally be the year the NCAA football championship returns to Athens, our friends at  uber-conservative Heritage Action are focused on the Law of the Sea Treaty.  And they’re focused on generating Senator Isakson’s opposition, specifically asking us to help.  We went one better, and asked and received a statement on his current position regarding it.

First, what the heck is the Law of the Sea Treaty?  You can read about it here.

Heritage Action’s problem with the treaty?

·         LOST creates the International Seabed Authority (ISA), a new, UN-style organization based in Kingston, Jamaica that would be dominated by anti-US interests;

·         Article 82 of the treaty requires the US to transfer significant offshore energy royalties to the ISA, which is then empowered to redistribute those funds to developing countries, even if they are undemocratic or state sponsors of terrorism;

·         Part XV of the treaty requires the US to engage in mandatory dispute resolution, paving the way for reckless and politically motivated allegations from hostile interests;

·         Contrary to popular belief, the treaty was not fixed in 1994; and,

·         For more than 200 years, America has successfully preserved and protected its navigational rights and freedoms by relying on naval operations, diplomatic protests, and customary international law.

·         Big Oil supports the treaty because they think it will allow them to drill in the Arctic; environmentalists support the treaty because they think it will preserve the arctic. Both can’t be right.

Isakson’s office responded with the following faster than I could don my tinfoil hat and shout Agenda 21!

“My first and foremost concern with the Law of the Sea Treaty is maintaining the sovereignty of the United States, and I have serious issues with it regarding sovereignty. I also have concerns over the revenue-sharing provisions in the treaty and want to ensure that the treaty would not require the United States to cede authority over revenue generation to an international body. Senator Kerry plans to hold more hearings on this treaty in the coming months, and I plan on attending all of them and asking tough questions.” –Sen. Isakson

On May 23, 2012, Senate Foreign Relations Chairman John Kerry, D-Didn’t Win The Presidency, held a hearing on this treaty. During the hearing, Sen. Kerry announced that this treaty will not be brought up for a vote in the Committee until after the November 2012 election.  It would be helpful to remember that Democrats, not Republicans, are currently running the Senate. 

In 2007, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee held two hearings on the Law of the Sea Treaty during which Johnny questioned the witnesses. On October 31, 2007, Johnny voted against moving the treaty out of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee because he had reservations regarding provisions that affect our national security.  The treaty passed out of committee by a vote of 17-4, but was not ratified by the Senate. (emphasis added to note that he’s already voted against this in committee.  In committee I say!)

That’s all the time I have for this issue today.  I shall now return to wondering if this will be the year that a national title returns to Athens.  And I don’t mean the Fulmer Cup.



Comments are closed.